“Section 2(47)”

Tree Hill Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

which held that if an assessee relinquishes his rights in the property for a consideration, it amounts to transfer under section 2(47) of the Act and liable to capital gain tax under section 45 of the Act. 10. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that Sobha ... transfer of a capital asset. The capital gain is charged to tax in the previous year in which the transfer takes place. 17. Section 2(47) of the Act reads as under:- “(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 22. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 22. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Sri Hanumanthiah, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

Before A.O., the assessee contended that the JDA entered by it would not result in any transfer of asset within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The A.O., however, did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The AO, taking support of the decision rendered ... High Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.K. Dayalu (202 Taxman 531), held that there was transfer of property in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, he computed long term capital gain of Rs.2.97 crores and assessed the same in the hands of the assessee

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

owner of independently owned IPR and foreground information and therefore there was no transfer of any right within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. He held that the independently owned IPR and foreground information were developed in the normal course of business and the expenditure of employees ... settlement agreement and submitted that an assignment of right as above in the IPR to Spreadtrum was a transfer as envisaged under section 2(47) of the Act. The consideration received being towards transfer of title is taxable as capital gains. Furthermore, as it is taxable as capital gains

M/S Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. There is no ambiguity found in the said provision. Under section 2(47)(iv ), which provision also came into effect from 1-4-1985, when an asset is converted by the owner as stock-in-trade of business ... Even assuming that before 1-4- 1985 such conversion could not be said to be transfer within the meaning of section 2(47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1-4-1985, the extended meaning of the word 'transfer' was applicable in respect of such conversion. Page 12 of 15 However, capital

K V Sridhar, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2012-13 Shri. K. V. Sridhar, Vs. Ito No.2029, 2Nd Floor, 26Th Cross, Ward – 3(2)(2), Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan : Abops 8745 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R

property and not for any other purpose. The Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and therefore capital gain was not exigible. The above decision would also support the view that the sum in question cannot

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

agreement physical possession of property was given to developer and assessee received certain advance, capital gain was eligible on transfer of property under section 2(47) - As for A.Y. 2007-08 assessee in its return of income had not admitted capital gains, assessment for that year, i.e., relevant assessment year ... taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

agreement physical possession of property was given to developer and assessee received certain advance, capital gain was eligible on transfer of property under section 2(47) - As for A.Y. 2007-08 assessee in its return of income had not admitted capital gains, assessment for that year, i.e., relevant assessment year ... taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

agreement physical possession of property was given to developer and assessee received certain advance, capital gain was eligible on transfer of property under section 2(47) - As for A.Y. 2007-08 assessee in its return of income had not admitted capital gains, assessment for that year, i.e., relevant assessment year ... taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

noted, Section 2(14) of the Act defines "capital asset" inter alia as a property of any kind held by an assessee. Section 2(47) of the Act defines "transfer" in relation to a capital asset to include sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any rights ... still begs the answer is can it be stated that the agreement to sale transfers the property in question within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act? ITA No.1115 & 1116/Bang/2018 M/s. Godha Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 8 of 11 17. In our opinion, the answer